The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2015
Evaluating Children With Metopic Craniosynostosis: The Cephalic Width-Intercoronal Distance Ratio.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McEwan Thomas W, Martin Andrea L, Tanaka Tomoko, Aldridge Kristina, Muzaffar Arshad R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To identify an additional objective measure to aid in the evaluation of children with isolated metopic craniosynostosis.
DESIGN: This is a retrospective study comparing specific computed tomography scan measurements between surgical and nonsurgical cohorts of children with isolated metopic craniosynostosis. Children were included if they were diagnosed with isolated metopic craniosynostosis and ultimately underwent computed tomography scan imaging as part of their evaluation. The subjects were placed in the surgical or nonsurgical cohorts on the basis of the final treatment recommendation after they completed a full multidisciplinary, multimodality evaluation. Comparisons were made with a control group of unaffected patients from our institutional trauma registry.
SETTING: Tertiary academic institution.
PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: The subjects are patients who had been previously evaluated in our clinic for isolated metopic craniosynostosis and received a computed tomography scan as part of their workup.
RESULTS: The average intercoronal distances were significantly different among all three groups (P < .002). The average cephalic width-intercoronal distance ratio for children who received a recommendation for surgery differed significantly from that of both the observation cohort and the control group (P < .001). However, the cephalic width-intercoronal distance ratio did not differ between the observation cohort and the control group (P = .927).
CONCLUSIONS: The cephalic width-intercoronal distance ratio may be an additional objective measurement to aid in the clinical evaluation of children with metopic craniosynostosis.
DESIGN: This is a retrospective study comparing specific computed tomography scan measurements between surgical and nonsurgical cohorts of children with isolated metopic craniosynostosis. Children were included if they were diagnosed with isolated metopic craniosynostosis and ultimately underwent computed tomography scan imaging as part of their evaluation. The subjects were placed in the surgical or nonsurgical cohorts on the basis of the final treatment recommendation after they completed a full multidisciplinary, multimodality evaluation. Comparisons were made with a control group of unaffected patients from our institutional trauma registry.
SETTING: Tertiary academic institution.
PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: The subjects are patients who had been previously evaluated in our clinic for isolated metopic craniosynostosis and received a computed tomography scan as part of their workup.
RESULTS: The average intercoronal distances were significantly different among all three groups (P < .002). The average cephalic width-intercoronal distance ratio for children who received a recommendation for surgery differed significantly from that of both the observation cohort and the control group (P < .001). However, the cephalic width-intercoronal distance ratio did not differ between the observation cohort and the control group (P = .927).
CONCLUSIONS: The cephalic width-intercoronal distance ratio may be an additional objective measurement to aid in the clinical evaluation of children with metopic craniosynostosis.